Should We Ignore Or Help Difficult People?

In my last article, “The Secret: Fact Or Fiction?”, I  said that “It is certainly flawed in places, and offers rather simplistic views of, for example, why bad events sometimes befall people (they draw it upon themselves, apparently).” Some people have argued that “The Secret” implies a  shunning of these people, that negative thoughts are contagious and that you must not draw them – or the people who think them – upon yourself.

I have wondered about this for a long time; what are you supposed to do with people who are just, well, negative?

A few years back, I suffered from panic attacks and an obsessive thought disorder known as depersonalization. Despite my initial enthusiasm for the Internet as a research tool, I found that using it as such in this case was extremely dangerous. Why? Because almost all of the forums in which you would expect to find support were actually inhabited by people who had no intention of getting better. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s true. People logged in day after day, broadcasting their self-pity on a digital soapbox. These posts usually amounted to little more than reassurance of the grimness of everyone’s situation, which is particularly demoralising to an individual with an obsessive thinking disorder. According to these people, nobody ever gets better from these conditions, and most people who logged on to say they had were branded a liar (I was one of them).

After my recovery, I wrote and began selling a guide on how to deal with obsessive thinking; one of the golden rules of that book was to never, ever go into a forum again. I have told everybody, and I mean hundreds of buyers, everyone who has read the book – to never speak to the people in the forums again, to have nothing to do with them. Because they will drag you down, they will infect you via emotional osmosis and make your own recovery that much more difficult. It happened to me many, many times before I noticed the pattern and stopped it.

And that’s the dilemma. Is it our duty to help and be kind to people who are, on the surface at least, cruel and hurtful? Or, to be exact, is it our duty to do this continually for that person?

I have been blessed with a wonderful family, with whom I get on very well; but I know people who have had to practically cut relatives out of their lives, purely for the sake of ease. Again, it sounds terrible, but if that person’s mood and demeanour affects yours (as it almost always must), how do you deal with a regular barrage of pessimism and ignorance that sucks the energy and vitality from yourself? And let me be clear; I am not talking about depression or sadness in a person. Of course, these absolutely must be dealt with, thoroughly and attentively. But in this case I am talking about negativity, insults, put-downs, bullying, manipulation and exploitation.

I had the experience of spending a good deal of time with one individual who had been “cut off” by another close member of their family, simply because the latter was totally unable to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the former. Despite my initial scepticism towards this way of dealing with the situation, I had to eventually conclude that it was the only practical way of doing so. The assumption, however hopeful, would be that the person in question would in the future, find a level of maturity on their own to allow for a reconciliation.

But until then, is there really any other alternative? Talking things out is not always a viable option. Often, when someone is confronted with what they perceive to be an assault on their ego, they can respond with tears, shouts or even violence. Indeed, arguing one worldview versus another is generally a exercise in futility. For example, take your average college debate. Let’s say that one side comes up with a long list of trump reasonings for their argument, while the other side fails to respond with anything remotely cohesive. Do you think that at any point, any member of the latter team will stand up and say “You know what? You’re right”, and join the other side?

Of course not. Why? Because most of us have developed this silly idea that our viewpoint is somehow connected to our ego, that changing one’s mind is somehow evidence of defeat, of not having thought things through. A healthier stance would be that changing one’s mind is evidence of adaptability, of willingness to change and evolve.

That’s why confronting someone who you believe to be mistreating others or acting in an ignorant manner can be so dangerous; because you are criticizing their behaviour, the way they interact with the world – and deep offence can be taken.

On the other hand, let’s consider the audience of the debate. These people are prone to great variances in opinion between the beginning and end of the verbal contest. In an excellent, ongoing series of podcasts, the moderators measure the listeners’ attitudes before and after the debate, which often produces huge differences. Why does this happen to the audience and not the debaters? Because the audience are spectators; they have no immediate social investment in the belief being contested. Not only that, but they are part of a gathering where the adaptation of thought is accepted and even encouraged.

They weigh up the evidence, and decide for themselves. And that’s a great microcosm for one’s personal ascent to maturity. Telling someone to change won’t make them change; demonstrating the value of change will allow them to make the decision for themselves. The famous therapeutic hypnotist Milton Erickson accomplished this brilliantly: For example, he had a rule of never telling his patients what not to do (i.e., “Don’t laugh”, “Don’t worry”). Also, he used techniques such as metaphorical stories to insinuate that the patient could get better. The bottom line was that everything was accomplished on the patient’s terms, a revolutionary approach that allowed for full recoveries in astonishingly short periods of time. Why? Because the patient figured out for themselves that they could do just that, for themselves.

It’s like the Buddhist saying, “When the student is ready, the lesson presents itself.” And the Desiderata says, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit.” If we take these sayings together, we might conclude that sometimes, it’s necessary to just leave some people alone and hope that they figure certain things out for themselves. This can be very tough, especially if that person is or has been close to you.

r

But if the student isn’t ready, maybe there is little you can do but wait and hope for the best.

r

Irish Transport Prices Go Up AGAIN

I heard on the news this morning that CIE are putting up the prices of all of their services (Bus Eireann, Irish Rail, Luas, Dublin Bus) yet again. This has become something of an annual tradition in Ireland.

The media has been filled with callers and voxpops from commuters who say that these costs are totally unjustified. Why? Because there has been no improvement in the actual service.

At the same time, pay rises for managers in many semi-state companies (including CIE) have been announced. These are the CEOs of organizations rife with needless bureaucracy, “jobs for the boys” and virtually no accountability on anyone’s part. Since there is no real competition in the market (due to government monopolization and the stranglehold of the unions), there are no standards for service whatsoever. Drivers are often rude and abusive.

The buses are so filthy and the service so bad that when Aircoach (an independent company) began their route from Cork to Dublin / Dublin Airport, they reported that for the first few weeks, many consumers repeatedly asked if these were private VIP buses. Irish commuters were unfamiliar with regular, punctual buses, fair prices, courteous drivers and buses that weren’t covered in shit.

The other week, my sister got the train home from Cork to Kerry. She decided to take the train to get home faster, since the bus can take up to 2 hours. Guess how long the train took? 2 and 1/2 hours. That’s right, it took a half hour longer than the bus. That’s a train versus a bus, folks. That’s tantamount to defying the laws of physics (and, needless to say, it cost more).

Why does this situation persist? I think it’s a combination of two things. Firstly, it’s our government’s complete lack of any guts. They refuse to take on the unions, because the unions can a) lose them lots of votes and b) hold the entire public-transport dependent population of Ireland hostage whenever they want. Secondly, it’s the Irish public’s dislike of standing up for themselves. As bizarre as this may sound, we seem to have a collective inferiority complex. When was the last time you saw someone talking back to a bullying bus driver or rail conductor? It never happens. We grumble and call up Joe Duffy, but what good is that on a practical level?

But the semi-state workers are well able to stand up for themselves, oh yes. One man alone can cause a strike to happen and disrupt the travel arrangements of thousands. Don’t believe me? It happened yesterday. That’s right, the day before CIE prices went up and CIE pay rises were announced, a CIE employee managed to bring the rail line between the two largest cities in Ireland to a standstill because – and get this – he asked for “a premium shift payment for specific inspection duties — and he launched unofficial action when that higher payment rate was denied.”

What??

Are they employing children? You don’t get what you want, so you can disrupt the plans of 2,000 people? If that was any sort of real company, that employee would have been fired on the spot. But no. Instead, this whining maggot is mollycoddled, and to hell with everyone else who is depending on the service to get to work, see their families, get hospital treatment etc.

This is bureaucracy gone mad, and symptomatic of a larger problem – we have start standing up for ourselves.